Politics: Matt Yglesias can be a genius sometimes

or at least eloquent

The question out of both debates is really why Bush gets so testy when Kerry -- or the moderator, or a member of the audience -- questions the wisdom of his Iraq policy. It's a bit demented in a psychological sense, and it's no wonder he can't conduct any proper diplomacy if this is his reaction when people question him. The thing about the Iraq War is that Bush's decision to invade isn't nearly as indefensible as he makes it sound. This was always one of the great liberal hawk mysteries before the war. Why did Bush push such a hysterical line -- roughly, "if we don't invade tomorrow Saddam will give a nuke to al-Qaeda which will be detonated in the middle of Manhattan" -- when there were plenty of non-hysterical, non-false considerations that could be brought to bear? Why can't he just take a deep breath and give a Mead-style answer? Why does he never even make reference to what was, to my mind, clearly the best argument for war -- that sanctions, while fairly effective, were also devastating to the Iraqi public? It's not merely that he's dishonest in various ways, but he doesn't seem to really understand his own policies very well.

bold emphases mine